https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290255 Section 25-A required not only separation in status but actual partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds; on the facts found by the income-tax authorities, no such partition was proved, so the finding against partition was upheld. Refusal to register the alleged partnership firm under Section 26-A was treated as final under the statutory scheme then in force, and the question whether the business was a genuine firm or continued as a Hindu undivided family turned on factual findings supported by material; accordingly, no referable question of law arose and the registration issue could not be reopened. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:33:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290255 Section 25-A required not only separation in status but actual partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds; on the facts found by the income-tax authorities, no such partition was proved, so the finding against partition was upheld. Refusal to register the alleged partnership firm under Section 26-A was treated as final under the statutory scheme then in force, and the question whether the business was a genuine firm or continued as a Hindu undivided family turned on factual findings supported by material; accordingly, no referable question of law arose and the registration issue could not be reopened. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jun 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290255